\section{Transition Elements}
\label{sec:transitionelements}

It makes sense to group the findings into the elements of the transition framework by \cite{GEELS}. We will start with a categorization of the regime-level, and then we will elaborate on the characteristics of the socio-technical landscape and discuss how it put pressure on the regime. Lastly we will do the same from a niche-innovation perspective and discuss the drivers and obstacles for a transition.

\subsection{Socio-Technical Regime}

We already stated in section \ref{sec:transition} that one can see host-centric and IP based inter-networking as the foundation of the existing socio-technical regime. It is within this frame that market players generate economic value. IP and host-centric networking act as a platform on which actors can build extensions to the existing Internet. As to what Dave Oran and Dirk Trossen depict about the problems and limitations of the current Internet architecture, there are possible holes in this regime. 

\subsection{Socio-Technical Landscape}
Summarizing, the socio-technical landscape refers to the external environment surrounding the regime actors and niche-innovations. The landscape is cannot be changed at will by regime actors and innovations. Changes in the landscape level can put pressure on the socio-technical regime and allow niche-innovation to evolve. \bigskip

\noindent Directly from the interviews it is difficult to say anything directly about the socio-technical landscape. One can discuss where the mentioned convergence of ICT technologies, which evidently has enabled new economic models, belongs in the MLP model; is it a part of the socio-technical landscape or is it a result of niche-innovations? It is possible to see the convergence as an environmental phenomenon, which have enabled an increasing amount of niche-innovations to find their way into the socio-technical regime. The circumstances which have initiated the convergence must have been of landscape characteristics together with technological niche-level innovations. We think it is justifiable to say that the whole ICT convergence has become an landscape level component; convergence has come to the agenda of politics and regulation, where it is treated as a ubiquitous fact. \bigskip

\noindent The whole FP7 programme and the Horizon 2020 are arguably also related to the landscape level, where EU has come to the realization of the importance of ICT research and innovation and that the Internet platform is increasingly important for well-fare and economic growth and therefore are doing long-term planning regarding broadband coverage on a political level. This might put the socio-technical regime under a considerable amount of pressure. Although R\"udiger Martin said that EU is not considering concrete deployment of ICN, their work is making the socio-technical regime unstable, but possibly not unstable enough to enable ICN to compete with the existing regime of IP. \bigskip

\noindent Furthermore, congestion control has been on the political agenda for a long time - also regarding Internet congestion. Now we have a technology (a niche-innovation), which have a possibility to control congestion and by that putting the regime under concurrent pressure. There is evidently an increasing focus on content trust and Internet security which also can be ascribed to the landscape level. Dave Oran emphasizes that ICN has to be able to provide concrete proofs of its ability to solve these issues in order to pressure the regime enough to destabilize it. 

\subsection{Niche-Innovation}

To be able to find the barriers to a transition to ICN we have to discuss the proportions of its internal momentum as a niche-innovation. It is important to notice that ICN is not just a topic dealt with by one or two actors. It has become a paradigm dealt with by multiple actors and one can argue that the assembly of ICNRG has contributed to its momentum. The fact, that ICNRG acts as a supervisor of the ICN community and seeks to drive it towards standardization, strengthens the momentum. \bigskip

\noindent All the interviewees concurrently stated that there not strong enough incentives to adopt ICN at the moment - apparently, no market players are doing it except big corporations like PARC, BT and Cisco who try to mature the technology. Even though we have depicted a landscape change, which might allow ICN to find its way into the socio-technical regime, existing regime actors stabilize the regime enough to maintain the chasm between ICN and the regime. \bigskip

\noindent It is too superficial just too classify ICN as a niche-innovation. We want to go a bit further into a discussion of the characteristics of ICN from an innovation perspective in sub-section \ref{subsec:innochar}.
